Status of an Advocate as an officer of justice does not mean that he is subordinate to the Judge. They are two branches of the same Supreme Court - (2015 (2) KCCR 1809 - High Court Of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya Dasa And Ors. )

Bar and Bench  – *Supreme Court -
(2015 (2) KCCR 1809 - High Court Of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya Dasa And Ors. )

Status of an Advocate as an officer of justice does not mean that he is subordinate to the Judge. They are two branches of the same profession and neither is superior or inferior to other. A discourteous judge is like an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a court room. It is questionably true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home,  courtesy must begin with the judge.
The bad behavior of one Judge has a rippling effect on the reputation of the judiciary as a whole. When the edifice of judiciary is built heavily on public confidence and respect, the damage by an obstinate Judge would rip apart the entire judicial structure built in the Constitution
The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honorable members. Status of an Advocate as an officer of justice does not mean that he is subordinate to the Judge. It only means that he is an integral part of the machinery for the administration
of justice. They are partners in the common enterprise of the administration of justice. The difference in their roles is one of division of labour only; otherwise they are two branches of the same profession and neither is superior or inferior to other.
Respect is not to the person of the Judge but to his office.
If the Judge has lost confidence of the Bar he will soon lose confidence of the public
The duty of courtesy to the Court does not imply that he should not maintain his self-respect and independence as his client's advocate. Respect for the Court does not mean that the counsel should be servile. It is his duty, while respecting the dignity of Court, to stand firm in advocacy of the cause of his client and in maintaining the independence of the Bar. It is obviously in the interests of justice that an advocate should be secured in the enjoyment of considerable independence in performing his duties.
A strong Judge will always uphold the law, and that is also the aim of advocacy, even though the Judge and the advocate may differ in their point of view.
His status as an officer of justice does not mean that he is subordinate to the Judge. It only means that he is an integral part of the machinery for the administration of justice.
Advocates share with Judges the function that all controversies shall be settled in accordance with the law. They are partners in the common enterprise of the administration of justice. The difference in their roles is one of division of labour only; otherwise they are two branches of the same profession and neither is superior or inferior to other. This fact is now recognized in India by the autonomy given to the Bar by The Advocate Act, 1961. Judges cannot do without the help of advocates if justice is to be administered in accordance with law, and its administration is to command popular confidence. It is the function of an advocate not merely to speak for the client, whom he represents, but also to act as officer of justice and friend of the Court. The first duty which advocates and Judges owe to each other is mutual co-operation, that is a fundamental necessity. Without it there can be no orderly administration of justice. Nothing is more calculated to promote the smooth and satisfactory administration of justice than complete confidence and sympathy between Bench and the Bar. If the Advocate has lost confidence of the Bench he will soon lose that of his clients. A rebuke from the Bench may be fatal to his chances of securing a high standing at the Bar. Similarly if the Judge has lost confidence of the Bar he will soon lose confidence of the public. There is the danger of a Judge placing over emphasis on the dignity of the Court.